His letter, dated 23rd September 1913, was in reply to journalist George R. Sims, a keen Ripper-watcher and commentator.
Here is the relevant section:
“I never heard of a Dr. D. in connection with the Whitechapel murders but amongst the suspects, and to my mind a very likely one, was a Dr. T. (which sounds much like D.). He was an American quack named Tumblety and was at one time a frequent visitor to London and on these occasions constantly brought under the notice of police, there being a large dossier concerning him at Scotland Yard. Although a 'Psychopathia Sexualis' subject he was not known as a 'Sadist' (which the murderer unquestionably was) but his feelings toward women were remarkable and bitter in the extreme, a fact on record. Tumblety was arrested at the time of the murders in connection with unnatural offences and charged at Marlborough Street, remanded on bail, jumped his bail, and got away to Boulogne. He shortly left Boulogne and was never heard of afterwards. It was believed he committed suicide but certain it is that from this time the 'Ripper' murders came to an end.”
“Psychopathia Sexualis” as referred to in the letter was an early forensic reference book for psychiatrists, physicians, and judges written by Richard Von Krafft-Ebbing and first published in 1886. Ebbing set out to discourage lay readers, deliberately choosing a scientific term for the title of the book and writing parts of it in Latin. The book was one of the first to be written about sexual practices, including homosexuality, and proposed consideration of the mental state of sex criminals in legal judgments of their crimes. During its time, it became the leading medico-legal textual authority on sexual pathology.
Since its discovery this letter has been the foundation of Tumblety’s viability as a Ripper suspect but it has not stood up to close scrutiny. Littlechild in the letter states that Tumblety was believed to have committed suicide. This is not correct; Tumblety lived until 1903 when he died of natural causes. Littlechild also states that after Tumblety fled the country the murders ceased. This is also not totally correct as previously stated the later murders of Frances Coles 1891 and Alice McKenzie 1889 were looked upon by the police as possible Ripper murders. The large dossier referred to by Littlechild may well have been the file of evidence regarding Tumblety’s court case. If one carefully reads the letter it is clear that Littlechild is merely giving nothing more than an opinion as to Tumblety’s viability as a likely Ripper suspect. There are no other official references, which corroborate Littlechild’s opinion. Opinions do not equate to a person being categorized as a prime suspect.
It should be noted that James Monro, who was in overall charge of Special Branch and superior in rank to Littlechild, makes no mention of the Ripper case or of Tumblety in his unpublished 1903 memoirs. Furthermore, with regard to Macnaghten's memorandum, none of his three named “more likely” suspects are Francis Tumblety.
Tumblety was arrested on 7th November on misdemeanour charges of gross indecency with, and indecent assaults upon, four named males.
To qualify as Jack the Ripper any suspect has to have been responsible for all the murders attributed to the killer including the murder of Mary Kelly which occurred in the early hours of Friday 9th November 1888 — two days after Tumblety's arrest — and the question is whether or not Tumblety could have been free on bail at this time in order to have committed the Kelly murder?
The information in trying to answer that question is limited. From the Old Bailey court calendar for November 1888 we know as a documented fact that Tumblety was taken into custody on [Wednesday] 7th November 1888. This document also tells us that a week later, on [Wednesday] 14th November, he was committed for trial by J. L. Hannay, a magistrate at Marlborough Street Police Court, and on [Friday] 16th November granted bail.
Various US newspapers reported Tumblety's 1888 bail as $1,500 [£300] — the present-day equivalent at current exchange rates of $36,440 [£23,390] — but as yet no documents have come to light to substantiate these figures or identify his sureties.
On the basis of the information contained in the November court calendar we therefore have to account for the whereabouts of Francis Tumblety during the crucial period between 7th and 14th November 1888. Could he have been free on bail between those dates? To answer this we must first look at the circumstances which led to Tumblety's arrest.
The details of Tumblety's eight offences [four for gross indecency, and four for indecent assault] together with the names of the victims were given on the indictment as Friday 27th July [Albert Fisher], Friday 31st August [Arthur Brice], Sunday 14th October [James Crowley] and Friday 2nd November [John Doughty]. It is not known the ages of the men however if they were young males (rent boys) this would have been an aggravating feature of the offences.
From this it appears that during the four-month period leading up to Tumblety's arrest the police had been conducting an investigation into his activities in the West End of London, the area over which Marlborough Street Police Court held jurisdiction.
The last of Tumblety's offences was shown as 2nd November. As he was not arrested [taken into custody] until 7th November it is apparent that he was not arrested whilst actually committing an offence. Had this been the case, a further offence dated 7th November would have appeared on the indictment.
Gross indecency was outlined in Section 11 of The Criminal Amendment Act 1885:“Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable at the discretion of the court to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.”
The act gave no specific definition of gross indecency, as Victorian morality demurred from precise descriptions of activities held to be immoral. In practice, this law was broadly used to prosecute male homosexuals where actual sodomy (buggery, anal intercourse, which was a felony) could not be proven.
Most famously, Oscar Wilde in 1895 was convicted under section 11 and sentenced to the maximum 2 years penal servitude (hard labour). The trial judge in that case deemed that maximum sentence which he was permitted by law to pass was totally unacceptable; suggesting that he would have imposed a longer sentence had the legislation allowed him to do so.
A misdemeanour should not be construed as necessarily less serious than a felony. Russell's “A Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanours” [fifth edition], 1877: “a misdemeanour is said to be a name generally applied to offences for which the law has not provided a particular name. But so many crimes have been created. Misdemeanours by statute which do not differ in character from felonies, that no distinction founded on the nature of the crime can be drawn between them. Nor can they be distinguished by the greater or less severity of the punishment, for some misdemeanours are punished more severely than felonies."
It should also be noted that although the type of sexual offences Tumblety was arrested for were classified as misdemeanours, which are a separate classification to that of the more serious felony, many offences however of a similar nature bore a thin line between a felony and a misdemeanour i.e. if a person steals apples from and orchard it is a theft and classed as a misdemeanour. If however a person steals apples from a basket outside a shop it would still be theft but would be classed as a felony. All distinctions between a felony and a misdemeanour were abolished in the UK in 1967.
Misdemeanours relating to serious sexual cases were indictable only. They could not be dealt with by magistrates, who in 1888, as today, had only limited sentencing powers. Such offences were tried at the Central Criminal Court.
The evidence the police would have sought to rely on in the case against Tumblety would have consisted of evidence in written statement form from the victims and any other witnesses, as well as evidence in written statement form from the two named policemen in the case “PS Frank Froest CID” and “PS Walter Dinnie CID”. Their evidence may also have included evidence
obtained from surveillance, an undercover operation, or both.
A close examination of police and court procedures of the day demonstrates two ways in which Tumblety could have been arrested in connection with these sexual offences, the first being an arrest without warrant.
The offences for which Tumblety was arrested were classed as misdemeanours, and arrests without a warrant for misdemeanour offences could only be made if [a] a statute gave a specific power of arrest for a particular offence, [b] a breach of the peace was actually taking place, or [c] an offence was about to take place and an arrest was necessary in order to prevent it.
In 1888 there were specific guidelines for dealing with persons arrested without a warrant for any offence and taken to a police station.
The Metropolitan Police Act 1839, Section 69:
“Every person taken into custody by any constable belonging to the Metropolitan Police, without warrant, except persons detained for the mere purpose of ascertaining their name or residence, shall be forthwith delivered into the custody of the Sgt or Inspector in charge of the nearest station-house in order that such person may be secured until he can be brought before a magistrate to be dealt with according to law, or may give bail for his appearance before a magistrate, if the Sgt or Inspector in charge shall deem it prudent to take bail in the manner hereinafter mentioned.”
Section 38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879:
“A person taken into custody for an offence without a warrant shall be brought before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction [Police Court/Magistrates Court] as soon as practicable after he is so taken into custody; and if it is not or will not be practicable to bring him before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction within 24 hours after he is so taken into custody, a superintendent or inspector of police, or other officer of police of equal or superior rank, or in charge of any police station, shall enquire into the case; and, except where the offence appears to such superintendent, inspector or officer to be of a serious nature, shall discharge the prisoner upon his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties, for a reasonable amount, to appear before some Court of Summary Jurisdiction at the day, time and place named in the recognizance.”
The question to be addressed is whether, if arrested without a warrant, Tumblety could have been eligible for bail:
“Bail, so far as police purposes are concerned, is the guarantee, under pecuniary [relating to or involving money] liability, to appear, or to produce an accused person to be tried according to law at an appointed time and place. It is of two kinds: —
“[a] That admitted by a police officer.
“[b] That allowed by Judge or Magistrate.
“As to police station court bail, the inspector or other officer in charge of a police station may under the provisions of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1829 (10 George IV., c.44, s. 9), and the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839 (2 and 3 Vict., c. 47, ss. 70 and 72), admit to bail persons charged with any petty misdemeanour for which they are liable to be summarily convicted by a Magistrate — such as drunkenness, disorderly conduct, carelessly doing a hurt or damage, etc., and by Section 38 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (42 and 43 Vict., c. 49), if the person in custody without a warrant cannot be taken before a magistrate within 24 hours, bail is compulsory for any trifling offence, even a felony not of a serious nature.”
Procedures were in place had Tumblety been eligible for police bail:
“If persons in custody for a bailable offence wish to send for bail, and are willing to pay for a messenger or telegram being sent, the officer in charge of the station is to take the necessary steps without delay.
“If prisoners have no money, and are desirous of being bailed, the necessary expenses of sending for bail will be allowed by the Commissioner, there being no object on the part of the Police in unnecessarily detaining in the cells a prisoner who can be legally liberated on sufficient bail being offered. The Police telegraph is to be used in such cases wherever practicable. Money or other property is not in any case to be accepted as a deposit in lieu of bail or of the recognizance of the person charged.”
Tumblety could not therefore have secured bail with cash, a personal cheque or the diamonds in which he later insisted the police were so interested. The key words relating to police bail were:
“If the person in custody without a warrant cannot be taken before a magistrate within 24 hours . . .”
Tumblety was arrested [taken into custody] on Wednesday 7th November 1888. Even had his arrest been in the evening of that day [after court hours], it would have been less than 24 hours before Marlborough Street Police Court reconvened on Thursday 8th November 1888, and so the matter of police bail would not have arisen.
The other option open to the police in effecting Tumblety’s arrest was to go before a magistrate to obtain an arrest warrant. For this to be issued the police would have to have given sworn information as to the grounds for seeking the warrant. And following the issuance and execution of the arrest warrant Tumblety would have been brought straight to court and the charges put to him before a magistrate.
Under these circumstances Tumblety would not have entered a police station, unless of course the arrest warrant was executed out of court hours. In that event he would have been detained in the police station cells until the following morning when the court reconvened. He could not have been bailed at the police station under the terms of the arrest warrant for this type of offence; as such warrants issued by the court were not eligible for bail. Once executed the warrant could not be reused. A specimen arrest warrant is set out below, granted under Section 3 of the Indictable Offences Act 1848.
“To the Constable of___________________ and to all other peace officers in the said (County) of _________________ Whereas A .B. of ____________________Hath this day been charged upon oath before the undersigned (Magistrates name) of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace in and for the said (County) for that he on ______________at _____________ did (Offence). These are therefore to command you, in Her Majesty's name, forthwith to apprehend the said A. B. and to bring him before (me) or some other Justice of The Peace in and for the said (County) to answer unto the said charge, and to be further dealt with according to law. Given under my hand and seal this ____________Day of ____________ In the year of our Lord___________ at____________ in the (County) aforesaid.”
Had Tumblety been arrested on such a warrant then Section 3 of the Act sets out specific actions open to the justices thereafter:
“It shall be lawful for such justice and justices, and he and they are hereby justice and justices for the same county or place to be dealt with according to law and afterwards, if such persons be thereupon apprehended and brought before any such justice or justices, such justice or justices upon its being proved upon oath or affirmation before him or them that the person so apprehended is the same person who is charged and named in such indictment shall, without further inquiry or examination commit him for trial or admit him to bail, in a manner herein after mentioned.”
Accordingly, the possibility thus arises of Tumblety having been bailed by a Police Court Magistrate on Wednesday 7th or Thursday 8th November 1888, at which time the final "Ripper" murder was a maximum of 36 hours away.
“If the investigation before the magistrate cannot be completed at a single hearing, he may from time to time remand the accused to gaol for any period not exceeding eight days; or may allow him his liberty in the interval upon his entering into recognizance’s, with or without sureties, for reappearance" [11 and 12 Vict. c.42, s.21].
Here again we must refer to the Old Bailey court calendar for November 1888, a document published after the close of that month's session on Friday 23rd November. The calendar clearly states that Tumblety was committed for trial on 14th November and not bailed until 16th November 1888.
Also contained in this official document is evidence to suggest that Tumblety had not been granted earlier bail at a Police Court, for two other persons on trial during the Old Bailey Dece
mber Sessions — Jane Levy and Arthur Andrew Cottee — are noted as having been "Bailed at Police Court".
No such notation appears in the entry for Tumblety. It is also noticeable that Tumblety’s committal hearing was not reported in the UK press and is easily explained.
In cases which fell outside a magistrate's “summary jurisdiction” [cases upon which he could pass sentence]: “The room in which the examination (Committal Proceedings) is held is not to be deemed an open court; and the magistrate may exclude any person if he thinks fit.” [11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 19, Indictable Offences Act, 1848]
So where was Tumblety between November 7th and 14th 1888? In the absence of any reliable evidence to suggest Tumblety was out on bail at the time of the murder of Mary Kelly at Miller’s Court on 9th November 1888, it may be concluded that during the period between his arrest [taken into custody] on 7th November and his 14th November committal for trial he was remanded in custody for the maximum eight-day period.
“If the investigation before the magistrate cannot be completed at a single hearing, he may from time to time remand the accused to gaol for any period not exceeding eight days . . .” [11 and 12 Vict. c.42, s.21].
In 1888 prisoners committed on remand from Police Courts in Middlesex [which included Marlborough Street] were held at the Clerkenwell House of Detention. Here Tumblety would have been able to have visits from friends and also his solicitor. He would also have been allowed to wear his own clothes.
On 14th November 1888 Tumblety would have been returned from the Clerkenwell House of Detention to Marlborough Street Magistrates Court for committal to the Central Criminal Court. Once the evidence had been heard and the magistrate was satisfied it was sufficient, he “committed” Tumblety for trial.
Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files Page 11